# About upgrading a profile to Web-Extensions
**URL:** https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585
**Category:** Development
**Created:** [February 12, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585 "2017-02-12T22:49:41Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Lusito](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/Lusito)
#### Post date: [February 12, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/1 "2017-02-12T22:49:41Z")
When uploading a web-extensionified version of my add-on, I get the following message:
> We allow and encourage an upgrade but you cannot reverse this process. Once your users have the WebExtension installed, they will not be able to install a legacy add-on.
What consequences does this have exactly?
Since the conversion to web-extension crippled my add-on extensively, I want my users to be able to go back to the old version in case they keep using an older firefox version. Will this be possible?
Sounds like the add-on profile on AMO will be converted, I.E. all non-web-extension versions will be lost.
So do I have to create a separate profile for the web-extension version?
On a sidenote, there was also a warning, that I can’t use the firefox-specific way to mark it an alpha version by using version “5.0a”. How do I now say that it’s an alpha version?
---
### Author:  [@noitidart](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/noitidart)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 5:40am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/2 "2017-02-13T05:40:05Z")
Your users will be automatically updated to the latest version, which will be your webext. You, as the dev, cannot upload a non-webxt again to that listing. However your users can freely downgrade their version, they just have to make sure to turn of auto updates, otherwise it will keep updating them to the webext.
> [@Lusito](#):
>
> On a sidenote, there was also a warning, that I can’t use the firefox-specific way to mark it an alpha version by using version “5.0a”. How do I now say that it’s an alpha version?
I’m not sure about this one, hopefully someone else can answer. I thought appending a or b does offer to go through to the beta channel.
---
### Author:  [@NilkasG](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/NilkasG)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 12:21pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/3 "2017-02-13T12:21:12Z")
> I can’t use the firefox-specific way to mark it an alpha
If you mean this
then you very much can do that, it is only telling you that you won’t be able to load the same file int Chrome, for example, since Chrome requires the version to be up to 4 numbers separated by `.`s, and notching else.
---
### Author:  [@DaveRo](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/DaveRo)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 1:26pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/4 "2017-02-13T13:26:03Z")
[quote=“noitidart, post:2, topic:13585”]
You, as the dev, cannot upload a non-webxt again to that listing.
[/quote]That’s significant - and potentially problematic.
I have developed a webextension version of an SDK addon, but it only works with Firefox desktop because the fennec APIs are not available yet. My plan was to release the webextension - flagged ‘desktop only’ - for Fx53, say, leaving Android users on the SDK version. But it I do that would it mean I could not then release an Android-only SDK version, to fix a problem?
If that’s true I must not release a webextension until the APIs I need are released for fennec.
---
### Author:  [@NilkasG](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/NilkasG)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:07pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/5 "2017-02-13T14:07:47Z")
> the fennec APIs are not available yet. […] for Fx53
In case the API you are missing is `browser.tabs`, [that works in Fennec 54](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1260548) (I have tested it, and it does 🙂 ).
---
### Author:  [@Lusito](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/Lusito)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:09pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/6 "2017-02-13T14:09:20Z")
Thanks for the info.
Where did you see the .s information? Does the .s stand for snapshot, i.e. could be used to flag for alpha/beta?
I found this information: [https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/manifest/version](https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/manifest/version)
which says you can use the version\_name property for beta names & such… (tho there doesn’t seem to be a beta-channel for chrome)
I wonder if AMO supports this as well.
---
### Author:  [@NilkasG](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/NilkasG)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:14pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/7 "2017-02-13T14:14:58Z")
> [@Lusito](#):
>
> Where did you see the .s information? Does the .s stand for snapshot, i.e. could be used to flag for alpha/beta?
If you try to temporary load an extension in chrome that has a version that doesn’t comply with this, chrome will tell you so.
“version\_name can be set to a descriptive version string and will be used for display purposes if present.”
Sounds like `version_name` is not really good for anything other than confusing people by displaying a version that is not actually the real version -.-
---
### Author:  [@DaveRo](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/DaveRo)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/8 "2017-02-13T14:29:36Z")
[quote=“NilkasG, post:5, topic:13585”]
In case the API you are missing is browser.tabs…
[/quote]No - options\_ui - \bug 1302504
I was monitoring browser.tabs too 😉 - \bug 1260548
---
### Author:  [@NilkasG](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/NilkasG)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:32pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/9 "2017-02-13T14:32:29Z")
Yeah, the lack of that is quite annoying. And especially stupid. I mean, all it would take is a single button to open a new tab. That could literally be done in a single line of code.
---
### Author:  [@DaveRo](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/DaveRo)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/10 "2017-02-13T14:42:22Z")
[quote=“NilkasG, post:9, topic:13585”]
Yeah, the lack of that is quite annoying
[/quote]Particularly because of this: [https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/t/prefs-do-not-show-on-fx-51-for-android/13471](https://discourse.mozilla-community.org/t/prefs-do-not-show-on-fx-51-for-android/13471)
---
### Author:  [@RealRaven](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/RealRaven)
#### Post date: [May 14, 2019, 9:53am UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/11 "2019-05-14T09:53:50Z")
I have just ran into this problem on Thunderbird. I released 2 versions for quickFilters last week, to both support my ESR (Tb60) users and those who run daily (Tb68). The builds are necessarily different. Someone reported a bug on the legacy version and now I cannot upload my fix! That’s very bad because I have a bunch of licensed users who expect support and up-todate versions for the ESR.
---
### Author:  [@DaveRo](https://discourse.mozilla.org/u/DaveRo)
#### Post date: [June 5, 2019, 10:14pm UTC](https://discourse.mozilla.org/t/about-upgrading-a-profile-to-web-extensions/13585/12 "2019-06-05T22:14:03Z")
There’s a TB addons category for discourse, you might be better off posting there.
This problem was predicted in this post
[https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/tb-planning/XUU-G9PMhi8](https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/tb-planning/XUU-G9PMhi8)
I haven’t seen anything about it since.